Average Screen Resolution Hits New, Widescreen High

35

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Athlonite

when you count HD ready TV's ( means 1366x768 res)and how many low end LCD screens the likes of HP Dell and Compaq put out every year it's not hard to see where the stats come from

and for those of you wanting 16:10 monitors your view of the world is distorted if you think that's a more natural resolution we all see in 16:9

avatar

Vano

Any discussion about view angle? It's a shame that most people don't even know about it...
Having two Samsung monitors here side by side, one is 204B with 60 degree view angle and 204T with 78 degree. What a difference in image quality! especially visible on dark images. 60 degree view I have to sit with eyes perfectly centered on the screen, little movement and colors start to shift, at some angle colors become inverted - that's just ridiculous.
78 degree has no such problem at any angle, even beyond 78 degree.

avatar

UrbanSmooth

I was 'rocking' 1680 x 1050 way back in 2005. I'm currently 'rocking' 5760 x 1200 (6030 x 1200 bezel-corrected)--three 1920 x [b]1200[/b] monitors in Nvidia Surround.

Seriously, the average are only at 13x7!? CATCH UP, PEOPLE!!

avatar

whitneymr

My desk is a 1920x1080 IPS as my main and an old ViewSonic 1440x900 for running Bridge in when working in Photoshop. My last 2 laptops have been/are Sony's with what they call "backlit Full HD display" at 1920x1080. I've never got a straight answer on if they are IPS or not but they sharp as h-ll and calibrate as good as anything.

avatar

TechLarry

I thought it would be higher than that. That's kinda whimpy, actually.

Might be because of the number of Laptops out there.

I have three 23", one 24", one 25", one 27" and one 22" around me.

The 24 and 25 run 1920X1200 and all the rest run 1920 by 1080.

Plus two Laptops :)

avatar

Duck Dodgers

My resolution has been 1920x1200 since 2007. Adoption seems incredibly slow.

avatar

Ghost XFX

I use a Sharp Aquos 40in. for my screen. I'm rather pleased with the results. Plenty HDMIs (4 in fact...), nice and flat with great color. Games are no issue here.

Hahaha, I pity you and your 28 in screen...

avatar

ZayLay

I want an iPad3 as a second monitor

avatar

GavinFarrington...

Yes. More pixels please. Many, many more.

And I too am tired of screen manufacturers stealing vertical resolution and calling it a "feature." Gimme my 16:10!

avatar

LatiosXT

You're not losing vertical resolution. Widescreen just increases how much you can see horizontally. At least, if you don't get something like what happened with Bioshock.

avatar

nbrowser

Ok, I guess I'm really strange, a couple of years ago a local store was selling this rare duck the Samsung 2343BWX 23 inch 16:9 LCD monitor, dirt cheap too at $200 a pop, but they aren't 1920x1080, they run at 2048x1152 native resolution, at the time I thought, great they are finally starting to push pixel density. Boy was I mistaken. Not only did Samsung stop selling these beautifully sharp screens but it seems you can't get a bump from 1920x1080 and still remain with a reasonably priced monitor, video cards can push a lot more than they used to, dammit give me more pixels !

avatar

LatiosXT

Part of me wishes 1366x768 would stop being standard on laptops where the size doesn't worry that small of a resolution. And unfortunately, the only real upgrade for some reason is 1920x1080, which is rarely found outside of 17" laptops. Yes I know you can get 15" laptops at that resolution, but they're rare and you pay a pretty premium.

Why can't 1600x900 be standard on 15" and an upgrade on 13"?

avatar

andrewc513

My resolution in 2004 was 1600x1200 on a 19" CRT. My resolution now is 1920x1200 on a 28" LCD. While density has not gotten much better, at least there are solutions that make the situation better. Cleartype has been built into Windows since Vista, and can be added post-install in XP. Anti-aliasing has gotten better as well for jagged edges while gaming, but it can only compensate so much for a low resolution.

I think what we want is something akin to an Apple cinema display at a reasonable price, perhaps $400 or less. $1000 is just too steep to make it a viable for anything other than professional uses and rich people.

It'd be nice to get over 60Hz again. I plugged my Windows 7 machine into a CRT the other day at my shop, and DANG. Seeing the GPU-accelerated GUI at 85Hz was just crazy fluid and smooth compared to what I've been looking at on LCD's all these years.

avatar

noobstix

My 1440x900 Viewsonic monitor died last year (around this time I think) so I'm using one of my brother's old Acer H233H monitors (with a broken power button). I kinda miss having flawless performance on most games with maxed out detail settings (including 8x Anti-Aliasing). My GPU performance in 3D tasks have probably seen a 5-10% decrease when going from 1440x900 to 1920x1080. The good news is, wallpapers are easy to find (I had a hard time finding decent 1440x900 wallpapers). I'm not surprised that people are rocking the 1366x768 resolution since there's plenty of wallpapers for those resolutions as well and they could still get some damn good performance for a mid-range GPU. Probably the majority of those users are on laptops as opposed to using a monitor of that size.

avatar

Rift2

Flat panels are garbage =) They burn my face off =) I'm seriously allergic to all flat panels and use them one day a week for gaming. I wish SED monitors made it to the surface but I guess I'll keep burning my lip and being sensitive to light.

avatar

MastaGuy

Actually yesterday, I upgraded from a 1024x768 dell monitor that was about 19 inches. I am now using an asus 1080p 23" monitor and it rocks

avatar

JohnP

Brad,
I found a great source about monitors, aspect ratio, and resolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_%28image%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_aspect_ratio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution

Note that 16:9 is now the OFFICIAL standard for computer monitors:

16:9

In 2008 the computer industry started to move over from 16:10 to 16:9. According to a report by displaysearch the reasons for this were/are:
1. Innovative product concepts drives a new product cycle and stimulating the growth of the notebook PC and LCD monitor market.
2. 16:9 provides better economic cut (panelization) in existing TFT LCD fabs.
3. 16:9 products provide higher resolution and wider aspect ratio.
4. The widespread adoption of High Definition in the consumer entertainment sector will help end users readily adopt the new products with the wider aspect ratio.
5. The 16:9 panels provide an opportunity for PC brands to further diversify their products.

By 2010, virtually all computer monitor and laptop manufacturers had also moved to the 16:9 aspect ratio, and the availability of 16:10 aspect ratio in mass market computer monitors and laptop products had become very limited.

In 2011 Non-widescreen displays with 4:3 aspect ratios still were being manufactured, but in small quantities. The reasons for this was according to Samsung that the “Demand for the old 'Square monitors' has decreased rapidly over the last couple of years,” and “I predict that by the end of 2011, production on all 4:3 or similar panels will be halted due to a lack of demand.”
In March 2011 the 16:9 resolution 1920x1080 became the most common used resolution among users of Steam. The earlier most common resolution was 1680x1050 (16:10).

avatar

Gezzer

I've always found it funny how these aggregated trends so many sites/analysts put out have a tendency to drive production "standards" while they only really give you a snap shot in time, and are easily skewed by many factors. For example Intel was and might still be considered the graphics king. Why? Because most lists included all types of graphics chips. Change it to graphics you can actually play a game on and Intel all but disappears. What hasn't changed is there are still people who can't figure out why the latest eye candy game won't run on their computer. The median isn't always the wisest or best choice.

I've used 4:3, 16:9, and 16:10 monitors both entry and high end. And 16:9 is fine for watching things where your further back from the screen. But I find my vision feels squished when gaming on a 16:9. 16:10 just feels perfect when I'm closer to the screen. That golden ratio I guess. I'd also suggest that 16:9s rise in popularity is more due to the fact that it's become entry level for both laptop and desktop then anything else. If your looking higher end there's still lots of 16:10 to be had.

Will 16:9 be the only choice sometime down the road? Might be but I don't think so. Anyone who's a serious PC gamer spends a lot of money on their hobby and have a tendency to go with parts costing higher then average. So well 16:9 will become Mom and Dad's aspect ratio mine's going to be 16:10 for as long as I can get them. Well 3x16:10 actually. :)

avatar

Neufeldt2002

Really sad to see that 16:9 is the official standard now. Hope my 16:10 doesn't crap out anytime soon.

avatar

Penterax

It's not the "official" standard, it's a crap standard pushed on people because it's cheaper to make than 16:10. Just use "1080p" as a buzzword, and hook them right in.

16:9 is fine if you are replacing your TV, but many of us hate them for monitor use, and if you read reviews of monitors on sites like Anandtech.com you will find more and more people blasting panel makers for making 16:9 monitors.

The fact is, there are a number of new 1920x1200 monitors out; your "facts" aren't facts, just your opinion. 16:10, and 4:3, are far from dead, and as more people find out how terrible 16:9 is for monitor use, especially on a smaller screen, sales will drop.

avatar

JohnP

Uhhh, touched a nerve did I? I DIDN'T WRITE THIS, it is a copy/paste from the Wikis. NOT MY OPINION!
In the meantime, READ THE ARTICLE that Brad wrote. (It's above your rant in this direction ^). It talks about how widescreens are more and more popular. You may not like them (and my friend who does astrophotography does not like them- Square photos and all that) but go to SAMS Club or Best Buy and try to get anything but a 16:9 monitor.
The standard was set by HDTV and has now moved onto computer monitors. Try fighting both the TV manufacturers AND the computer folks. The only reason computer monitors and TVs were EVER 4:3 was because it was really, really expensive to make a rectangular CRT. Golden ratio always wins.
In the meantime, every single forgotten standard is for sale somewhere. You can still buy 5 1/4 inch floppy disks for instance. And monitors will still come in every shape and size that someone is willing to buy (including CRTs!). Buy what you want but 16:9 is here to stay.
Oh, and 16:9 works OK as a monitor if you buy a really big one!

avatar

bloodgain

The golden ratio is ~1.6180339877, which means 16:10 is closer to the golden ratio than 16:9 is. The golden ratio is losing -- just proof that the manufacturers are doing it all wrong!

avatar

beegie

16:10 is the way to go. 16:9 is barely wider than a 16:10 but the height on a 16:10 is quite a bit more, so more screen real estate.

avatar

JohnP

Cripes, just move the Windows taskbar to the side and you have the equivalent of a 16:10 monitor. It's less than an inch difference in height on a 24 inch monitor. I doubt you could walk up to a monitor and tell if it is 16:9 or 16:10 just by looking at a blank screen.

avatar

rawrnomnom

I'm still a firm believer that 1600x900 is perfect for a 13-14 inch screen, and 1080 is good for 15 inches... Now we need to work on making super high resolution panels available for less than $700... i want 2650x1440 on my desktop...

avatar

JohnP

I just bought two more Dell 27 inch U2711 monitors. 2560 by 1440 and IPS= sweet, sweet image and gaming goodness.

avatar

rawrnomnom

I'll never go back to TN panels. Haha... HP ZR22W is my go to screen for 1080p

avatar

spaceporker

Gimme!

avatar

spaceporker

Gimme!

avatar

JohnP

Nah, I gots 2 kids (err, manly men). They get the new monitors. Add 3 Ivy Bridge chips, 3 ASUS Z77 deluxe mobos, 48 GB of memory and (eventually) 3 GTX 685 GPUs and it will be a an upgrade of a lifetime.
I do have all three of those pesky 24" Dell U2411 monitors hanging around though. I wonder what to do with those?

avatar

myh1tlist101

As I said before I can kindly take those off your hands. For no cost to yourself.

avatar

NavarWynn

I have yet to buy a mobile unit (or any other) w/ such crappy resolution, It's always been a bone in my craw that in 1999 I could rock 1600x1200 resolution on dual 20" CRTs, and then technology went backwards. Flat panels are great - for recreation - movies and games, but if you've ever tried to do CAD work (or run UNIX ;-) ) on a 'consumer' grade LCD unit, you just want to shoot yourself in the head.

While decent "workstation" laptops (w/ WUXGA 15"/15.4"/17" screens) could rock 1920x1200, such screens (apparently) are impossible to find in less than 24" on a desktop unit... Considering the price of a 17" WUXGA LCD panel is (now) less than $100, why the heck do I have to suck up 4' of desk space to get a simple small 3840x1200 desktop? I try to freaking work with the crap, not have to look like I'm watching a tennis match to see the other side of my desktop. re freaking diculous. It's 2012.

avatar

alexw1234

I feel better knowing that I run 2 1080p panels at the same time and most people don't have 1.

avatar

AETAaAS

1366x768's rise to become the almost ubiquitous mainstream notebook resolution is still beyond me... Interesting too that 1920x1080 is only a little over 5%, I'd never buy a monitor with less than that even 5 years ago.

avatar

Peanut Fox

Sounds like a lot of mobile units are being sold.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.